Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Vdubs]

Belief is an impediment to thought. And biblical literalism is the only way to be a true christian.

Here's a question for you; is there any part of the bible - any of it - that you do not think is the word of God? If it is all the word of God, is there any part of the bible you do not follow completely? To follow Leviticus 15, how many pigeons you offing a year?

Read Heb 10:10 and you'll understand how Leviticus pertained to the people, and how they could only approach God in ways you have been referring to. Very valid and important truths. Sanctification. BUT, Jesus has come and offered Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, holy and perfect , ONCE FOR ALL, fulfilling the law, and rendering future animal sacrifices UNNECESSARY and void. That's why we are Christians.

 

[Gethelred]

Read Heb 10:10 and you'll understand how Leviticus pertained to the people, and how they could only approach God in ways you have been referring to. Very valid and important truths. Sanctification. BUT, Jesus has come and offered Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, holy and perfect , ONCE FOR ALL, fulfilling the law, and rendering future animal sacrifices UNNECESSARY and void. That's why we are Christians.

Okay, so you don't have to kill pigeons. Bill Lawry will be happy.

Do you bathe after you accidentally spit, cut yourself, or touch a woman? Have you ever worn clothing consisting of both cloth and wool (Leviticus 19:19)? Do you think it's a female virgin's fault if she is raped (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)? Have you ever eaten pork (Leviticus 11:7-8) or unkosher meat (Deuteronomy 12:21) or fat (Leviticus 3:17) or calamari (Deuteronomy 14: 9-10)?

Have you ever been near a church whilst unclean (Numbers 19:13) as defined in Leviticus 15? Do you think women shouldn't be allowed to speak (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)?

I can keep going, if you like. There are so many different types of this stuff in the bible, and you need adhere to it all.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

 

[Vdubs]

Okay, so you don't have to kill pigeons. Bill Lawry will be happy.

Do you bathe after you accidentally spit, cut yourself, or touch a woman? Have you ever worn clothing consisting of both cloth and wool (Leviticus 19:19)? Do you think it's a female virgin's fault if she is raped (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)? Have you ever eaten pork (Leviticus 11:7-8) or unkosher meat (Deuteronomy 12:21) or fat (Leviticus 3:17) or calamari (Deuteronomy 14: 9-10)?

Have you ever been near a church whilst unclean (Numbers 19:13) as defined in Leviticus 15? Do you think women shouldn't be allowed to speak (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)?

I can keep going, if you like. There are so many different types of this stuff in the bible, and you need adhere to it all.

The word according to Gethelred.

 

[Gethelred]

The word according to Gethelred.

You said it yourself:

Christians, to be consistent, should have the same view as Jesus; the Old Testament is the divinely inspired Word of the living God.

So, no. Not the Word according to me (although creating a religion devoted to my wisdom has a certain appeal). This is the Word according to Vdubs.

Any time you want to inform us all if you've broken or do not think any of the above is the Word of God would be appreciated.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

So the question is - if you don't have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian, how do you know which parts you do have to follow and which parts you don't?

 

[Gethelred]

So the question is - if you don't have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian, how do you know which parts you do have to follow and which parts you don't?

Convenience. God'll understand. Just ask the Canaanites.

 

[Vdubs]

You said it yourself:

So, no. Not the Word according to me (although creating a religion devoted to my wisdom has a certain appeal). This is the Word according to Vdubs.

Any time you want to inform us all if you've broken or do not think any of the above is the Word of God would be appreciated.

Yes, Divinely inspired Word of God. You can continue to wallow in your literalist hangups; meanwhile, as Christians, and people living in 2020, we accept the teachings of Jesus, and appreciate what His sacrifice meant, and we appreciate WHY the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, and how the people of that era needed to be made clean to come to God. It seems to be a real stumbling block for you, this concept of accepting Jesus for what He did for us, rendering previous laws and sacrifices now unnecessary.

 

[Evolved1]

So the question is - if you don't have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian, how do you know which parts you do have to follow and which parts you don't?

The parts about giving money to church and hating gays are to be taken literally, and almost everything else figuratively.

If science shows that a bible passage is wrong, its because that passage was meant to be taken figuratively. When the bible is scientifically correct, its proof that the bible was inspired by god.

 

[Gethelred]

Yes, Divinely inspired Word of God. You can continue to wallow in your literalist hangups; meanwhile, as Christians, and people living in 2020, we accept the teachings of Jesus, and appreciate what His sacrifice meant, and we appreciate WHY the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, and how the people of that era needed to be made clean to come to God. It seems to be a real stumbling block for you, this concept of accepting Jesus for what He did for us, rendering previous laws and sacrifices now unnecessary.

Corinthians is in the NT mate, so I'll ask again: do you think women shouldn't be allowed to speak (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)?

Answer Rusty Brookes question: if you don't have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian, how do you know which parts you do have to follow and which parts you don't?

 

[Gethelred]

And that's my problem in a nutshell, Vdubs. You've seen the posts, you've been prompted to answer multiple questions, but you simply refuse to engage with questions you can't answer.

 

[Vdubs]

And that's my problem in a nutshell, Vdubs. You've seen the posts, you've been prompted to answer multiple questions, but you simply refuse to engage with questions you can't answer.

I do have a life away from you btw.
I have answered your questions, but you refuse to let go of your pedantic insistence on every word being taken literally.
I am not going to reply to each of your selected examples, because you are intelligent enough to already know the replies, and if not, you need to get out of this rut.
Suffice it to say-Verses need to be read in their context, who they were written to, what was the background, etc .
That's what Bible teachers do- they have knowledge of the underlying original text, have studied Hebrew etc, and can preach about the verses in their context. If you have not experienced this, it is never too late. Nevertheless, the Bible is there to be read by all of us, and with correct motives, and prayerful meditation, you will become unstuck on this literalism that bogs you down.

 

[Gethelred]

I do have a life away from you btw.

I'm aware, but funny thing about this website; you can see the last thing any given poster looked at when you look at their profile. So I know you saw the posts in question, and that - unlike when you think you've got an opportunity or a window - you didn't respond.

I have answered your questions, but you refuse to let go of your pedantic insistence on every word being taken literally.
I am not going to reply to each of your selected examples, because you are intelligent enough to already know the replies, and if not, you need to get out of this rut.

I'm not interested in my own answers, I'm interested in how you reconcile each individual oddity within the bible with your everyday.

Suffice it to say-Verses need to be read in their context, who they were written to, what was the background, etc .
That's what Bible teachers do- they have knowledge of the underlying original text, have studied Hebrew etc, and can preach about the verses in their context. If you have not experienced this, it is never too late. Nevertheless, the Bible is there to be read by all of us, and with correct motives, and prayerful meditation, you will become unstuck on this literalism that bogs you down.

So bible teachers - people basing their readings on the bible - allow you to circumvent biblical literalism... how?

Look at it from a deific perspective; you've essentially reinterpreted His word to suit your convenience because another human said so. You think He'll forgive you for that? I mean, you're not following his word any longer; you might as well be following another god.

 

[Vdubs]

I'm aware, but funny thing about this website; you can see the last thing any given poster looked at when you look at their profile. So I know you saw the posts in question, and that - unlike when you think you've got an opportunity or a window - you didn't respond.
I'm not interested in my own answers, I'm interested in how you reconcile each individual oddity within the bible with your everyday.

So bible teachers - people basing their readings on the bible - allow you to circumvent biblical literalism... how?

Look at it from a deific perspective; you've essentially reinterpreted His word to suit your convenience because another human said so. You think He'll forgive you for that? I mean, you're not following his word any longer; you might as well be following another god.

That is you in a nutshell- even suggesting you can look at something from a deific perspective... you really are intussuscepted.
And even if i saw your post, it doesn't mean I have time to reply without it being flippant.
But I have replied, so that negates your issue, unless you also can't cope without instant gratification.

 

[Gethelred]

That is you in a nutshell- even suggesting you can look at something from a deific perspective... you really are intussuscepted.

... is that your way of calling me a s**t? If so, I'm very happy. It's not every day someone teaches me a new word.

And even if i saw your post, it doesn't mean I have time to reply without it being flippant.

But your posts are in general (if not flippant) very, very evasive. You don't answer posts directly, if you answer them at all. You go off on tangents, then get grumpy when people refuse to go with you.

And - I reiterate - you've still not answered any of the posts that have been directed at you for the last 2 days. Not. One. You might suggest your comment informing me that Heb 10:10 averts the need to sacrifice pigeons, but you ignored the entire rest of the post as you tend to ignore anything that you find uncomfortable.

But I have replied, so that negates your issue, unless you also can't cope without instant gratification.

Replying does not necessitate an answer, and you don't answer posts.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

"Seeing is Believing" (Religions Excluded)

 

[Gethelred]

Still waiting, Vdubs.

 

[Roylion]

Yes, Divinely inspired Word of God.

That's only an opinion. Anyone who writes anything down can claim to be "divinely inspired." Mohammed claimed to be divinely inspired when the word of God was supposedly orally revealed to him. In fact Muslims believe the Quran is not simply divinely inspired, but is the literal word of God and therefore "holier" than anything written down in the Bible

we appreciate WHY the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, and how the people of that era needed to be made clean to come to God.

The laws in Leviticus and Dueteronomy were written over a long period of time reaching their present form during the Persian Period between 538–332 BC. Leviticus itself appears originally to have been two seperate works the "Priestly Code" and the "Holiness Code" that were later joined together, whereas the core of Deuteronomy (Chapters 12 through to 26) were composed around the time of King Josiah (late 7th century BC).

Why these original writings were composed was part of the religious struggle between the priests of Baal and the priests of Yahweh for the hearts and minds of the Judeans and Israelites. Chapters 1 through to 4 as well as 29 and 30 were added much later after the return from exile in the 6th century BC and attempted to explain the disaster of exile as Yahweh's punishment of their failure to follow the law. Even the concept of "God" in the book changed over time. The earliest 7th century layer of Dueteronomy is monolatrous and doesn't even deny the reality of other gods but tries to enforce the worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem alone.

In the later additions from the mid-6th century, especially chapter 4, this is developed further by the introduction of the idea if monotheism - the idea that only one god (of cousse Yahweh - originally one of many gods) exists at all.

Even the idea that God is omnipresent - capable of being everywhere at the same time - is aired for the first time by the claim that God is simultaneously present in the Temple and in heaven.

At the same time these writers also created a history of Israel (the books of Joshua through Kings) to illustrate the same message and to emphasise the unity of the Jewish people under a shared history and shared religion bound together by the sole worship of their patron god "Yahweh" (who of course only needed to be referred to as "God").

Other works were also added in in the final form of Dueteronomy.

Whatever the case these writings were certainly not divinely inspired..at least no more than any other great work of literature originating in a variety of cultures.

 

[Roylion]

He confirmed the historicity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, David, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, Elijah, Elisha and Zechariah.

He "believed" they existed, only because Jesus was following the writings of the Old Testament such as the Torah. This does not "confirm" the "historicity" of these figures. The Anglo-Saxon kings of Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia and Kent claimed descent from Odin (Woden), but that doesn't mean Odin definitely existed.

Jesus also confirmed a number of Old Testament accounts. These include God giving Moses the rite of circumcision, God providing the manna in the wilderness, David eating the bread of presentation, David as the writer of certain Psalms, Moses writing the law, the suffering of the prophets, the episode with Lot’s wife, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the destruction of Tyre and Sidon.

He merely repeated what had already been written down. As an observant Jew Jesus probably did genuinely believe that these things happened, but his belief in them, does not mean they are historically confirmed. Only science (in particular archaeology, anthropology and possibly biology in terms of DNA analysis) will "confirm" these events historicity. Jesus certainly did not.

Jesus also confirmed a number of the most controversial accounts recorded in the Old Testament. They include: Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the Flood in Noah’s day and Jonah and the sea creature.

No he didn't. None of these events have been confirmed.

In fact DNA analysis have basically confirmed that all of humanity being descended from one contemporaneous couple (i.e. Adam and Eve) simply could not have happened. See below for more details. There is also no evidence whatsoever in support of a single global flood "in Noah's day". There may have been a large local or regional flood and there is geologic or paleontological evidence that those sorts of natural events did happen in the Medpostamian river valley of the Tigris and Euphrates. The "global flood" may also have been based on the flooding of the Black Sea river basin for which geological evidence also exists. This is where Mediterranean seawater poured into the Black Sea freshwater lake about 5,500 BC. The event flooded 100,000 square kilometres of land and significantly expanded the Black Sea shoreline to the north and west. It is estimated that the flow of water was two hundred times the flow of Niagara Falls and would have led to significant local flooding. MT Ararat of course the reputed resting place of "Noah's Ark is adjacent to both of theise geographical locations. Even the filling of the Persian Gulf after sea waters rose following the end of the last glacial period about 16,000 BC may have made some contribution to the global flood myth. Sea levels rose steadily until about 6,000 BC. Even the scientific speculation that a large tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea, caused by the Thera eruption (with an approximate geological date of 1630–1600 BC), could be the myth's historical basis. Whatever the case there was no global flood.

The story of Noah appears to be heavily based on earlier Mespotamian mythology and was very likely to have been written about the time of the Jewish Babylonian exile when the Mesopotamian source material would have been easy to access.

The development of the story of Noah in Genesis goes something like this

2700 BC: Calculated time of the figure of Gilgamesh as per dating of walls of Uruk.
2100 BC: Apparent origin of the oldest Gilgamesh epic (Akkadian, AKA Old Babylonian). Alludes to the Flood, but does not specifically mention it.
Before Hammurabi (~1700 BC): Apparent time period of Atrahasis story, oldest Mesopotamian flood story
1830 BC: Oldest Estimated age of "CBM 13532" - also sometimes called the 'Nippur Flood Tablet'
1600 BC: Apparent origin of the known oldest copy of the Atrahasis story (but likely to have been assembled 1800 - 1700 BC)
1400 BC: Standard Babylonian version including all 12 tablets. Flood story complete as copy of Atrahasis.
1170 BC: Youngest Estimated age of "CBM 13532"
668-626 BC: King Assurbanipal of Assyria finds and stores the oldest preserved copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh in his library. Rediscovered in AD 1849

The approximate time of the writing / assembling of the Book of Genesis was between 600-300 BC.

The Genesis genealogies post Adam and pre Noah are based heavily on old Sumerian king lists and have a fair bit of invention thrown in for good measure. The invention of exalted ancestors for a particular individual or a particular family is very common.

The Biblical Adam very probably comes in part from Alulim (king of Eridu), the first king in the Sumerian King List. He ruled for 28,800 years.

In terms of human genetics, the story of Adam and Eve as the single contemporary ancestors of humanity never occurred.

The concept that all humans descended from solely two historical persons is impossible. Genetic evidence indicates all modern humans descended from a group of at least 10,000 people, about 200,000 years ago due to the amount of human genetic variation. If all humans descended from two individuals several thousand years ago, it would require an impossibly high mutation rate to account for the observed variation in modern humanity.

Science, particularly the field of human genetics does have a bit to say about the ancestry of all humans on the planet. What genetics does tell us is that all modern humanity have a common female ancestor.

"Mitochondrial Eve" refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of modern humans. In other words, she was the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother's side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago in East Africa.

Y-chromosomal Adam is the most recent common ancestor from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal lines of their family tree until they converge on one individual). Recent studies report that Y-chromosomal Adam lived as early as around 142,000 years ago. Two of his sons have unbroken lineages that have survived to the present day.

So at the very least there is a gap of 58,000-odd years between these two individuals - they certainly were not husband and wife and were alost certainly not the first humans as claimed in the Torah, Old Testament and the Qur'an. Allowing 30 years per generation, there's a difference of about 1,930 generations. In fact Mitochondrial Eve could well have been the ancestor of Y-chromosomal Adam.

All the story of Adam and Eve in the Abrahamic religions seems to be explaining is the human shift from hunter gathering to farming between 10,000 BC and 6,000 BC and passed down as part of an oral tradition. While this is far more speculative than the genetic record of humanity, a plausible theory has been suggested that the myth of the first humans was derived to explain this shift. The myth seems to be suggesting that harmony with nature was lost with the expulsion from the Garden of Eden and that the nature of mankind started to change. Some of what happened is reflected in aspects of the myth.

For example, the work "Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture", edited by Drs. Mark Nathan Cohen and George J. Armelagos suggested that childbirth become more painful and dangerous with the transition to sedentism, urbanism and domestication, because the pelvic canal narrowed further with the changes to people’s sedentary diet. This was mentioned in the Adam and Eve story at the expulsion from the Garden of Eden in Genesis. “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.” Genesis 11.16. It also has been suggested that with the movement to agriculture, people also discovered the link between sexual intercourse and birth ("He knew his wife”) at this time and this produced further changes in relation to ancestry, the male role, monogamy, children and property. It was a momentous change for humans, just as the expulsion from the Garden of Eden was in the story of the Fall in Genesis and is momentous change for humans.

The Sumerian tale of Emesh and Enten reflects the later story found in the Bible of "Cain and Abel".

Enmunderana appears to be the forerunner of the Biblical Enoch. In Enoch's case, both Enoch and Enmunderana are the seventh name in a list of patriarchs with long lifespans. Enmendurana is associated with Sippar (which was associated with sun worship) while Enoch's lifespan in the Bible is 365 years which is parallel to the number of days in a solar year.

There was also the confirmation by Jesus of the authorship of certain disputed portions of the Old Testament—Daniel and Isaiah. Jesus quoted from Daniel as a prophet. He also cited both sections of Isaiah and attributed them to Isaiah alone.

He believed they were from Isaiah as per Jewsh teaching of the time. As would Peter and Paul and otehr disciples. All orginally observant Jews, as far as we know. There was no confirmation.

Jesus also spoke of Old Testament prophecy being fulfilled. He assumed the passages cited made divine predictions which needed to be fulfilled. He also saw the Old Testament as speaking of Him. It anticipated His coming into the world.

Of course he would use ancient Scripture to enhance his own reputation and authority. Or at leas this followers would argue that.

the Old Testament is the divinely inspired Word of the living God.

That's very disputable no matter what Christians (often with no supporting evidence whatsover) believe.

 

[Vdubs]

He "believed" they existed, only because Jesus was following the writings of the Old Testament such as the Torah. This does "confirm" the "historicity" of these figures. The Anglo-Saxon kings of Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia and Kent claimed descent from Odin (Woden), but that doesn't mean Odin definitely existed.



He merely repeated what had already been written down. As an observant Jew Jesus probably did genuinely believe that these things happened, but his belief in them, does not mean they are historically confirmed. Only science (in particular arachaeology, anthropology and possibly biology in terms of DNA analysis will "confirm" these events historicity. Jesus certainly did not.



No he didn't. None of these events have been confirmed. In fact DNA analysis have basically confirmed that all of humanity being descended from one contemporarous couple (i.e. Adam and Eve) simply could not have happened. See below for more details. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of a single global flood "in Noah's day". There may have been a large local or regional flood and there is geologic or paleontological evidence that those sorts of natural events did happen in the Medpostamian river valley of the Tigris and Euphrates. The "global flood" may also have been based on the flooding of the Black Sea river basin for which geological evidence also exists. This is where Mediterranean seawater poured into the Black Sea freshwater lake about 5,500 BC. The event flooded 100,000 square kilometres of land and significantly expanded the Black Sea shoreline to the north and west. It is estimated that the flow of water was two hundred times the flow of Niagara Falls and would have led to significant local flooding. MT Ararat of course the reputed resting place of "Noah's Ark is adjacent to both of theise geographical locations. Even the filling of the Persian Gulf after sea waters rose following the end of the last glacial period about 16,000 BC may have made some contribution to the global flood myth. Sea levels rose steadily until about 6,000 BC. Even the scientific speculation that a large tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea, caused by the Thera eruption (with an approximate geological date of 1630–1600 BC), could be the myth's historical basis. Whatever the case there was no global flood.

The story of Noah appears to be heavily based on earlier Mespotamian mythology and was very likely to have been written about the time of the Jewish Babylonian exile when the Mesopotamian source material would have been easy to access.

The development of the story of Noah in Genesis goes something like this

2700 BC: Calculated time of the figure of Gilgamesh as per dating of walls of Uruk.
2100 BC: Apparent origin of the oldest Gilgamesh epic (Akkadian, AKA Old Babylonian). Alludes to the Flood.
Before Hammurabi (~1700 BC): Apparent time period of Atrahasis story
1830 BC: Oldest Estimated age of CBM 13532 - also sometimes called the 'Nippur Flood Tablet'
1600 BC: Apparent origin of the oldest copy of the Atrahasis story (but likely to have ben assembled 1800 - 1700 BC)
1400 BC: Standard Babylonian version including all 12 tablets. Flood story complete as copy of Atrahasis.
1170 BC: Youngest Estimated age of CBM 13532
668-626 BC: King Assurbanipal of Assyria finds and stores the oldest preserved copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh in his library. Rediscovered in AD 1849

The approximate time of the writing / assembling of the Book of Genesis was between 600-300 BC.

The Genesis genealogies post Adam and pre Noah are based heavily on old Sumerian king lists and have a fair bit of invention thrown in for good measure. The invention of exalted ancestors for a particular individual or a particular family is very common.

The Biblical Adam very probably comes in part from Alulim (king of Eridu), the first king in the Sumerian King List. He ruled for 28,800 years.

In terms of human genetics, the story of Adam and Eve as the single contemporary ancestors of humanity never occurred.

The concept that all humans descended from solely two historical persons is impossible. Genetic evidence indicates all modern humans descended from a group of at least 10,000 people, about 200,000 years ago due to the amount of human genetic variation. If all humans descended from two individuals several thousand years ago, it would require an impossibly high mutation rate to account for the observed variation in modern humanity.

Science, particularly the field of human genetics does have a bit to say about the ancestry of all humans on the planet. What genetics does tell us is that all modern humanity have a comon female ancestor.

"Mitochondrial Eve" refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of modern humans. In other words, she was the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother's side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago in East Africa.

Y-chromosomal Adam is the most recent common ancestor from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal lines of their family tree until they converge on one individual). Recent studies report that Y-chromosomal Adam lived as early as around 142,000 years ago. Two of his sons have unbroken lineages that have survived to the present day.

So at the very least there is a gap of 58,000-odd years between these two individuals - they certainly were not husband and wife and were alost certainly not the first humans as claimed in the Torah, Old Testament and the Qur'an. Allowing 30 years per generation, there's a difference of about 1,930 generations. In fact Mitochondrial Eve could well have been the ancestor of Y-chromosomal Adam.

All the story of Adam and Eve in the Abrahamic religions seems to be explaining is the human shift from hunter gathering to farming between 10,000 BC and 6,000 BC and passed down as part of an oral tradition. While this is far more speculative than the genetic record of humanity, a plausible theory has been suggested that the myth of the first humans was derived to explain this shift. The myth seems to be suggesting that harmony with nature was lost with the expulsion from the Garden of Eden and that the nature of mankind started to change. Some of what happened is reflected in aspects of the myth.

For example, the work "Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture", edited by Drs. Mark Nathan Cohen and George J. Armelagos suggested that childbirth become more painful and dangerous with the transition to sedentism, urbanism and domestication, because the pelvic canal narrowed further with the changes to people’s sedentary diet. This was mentioned in the Adam and Eve story at the expulsion from the Garden of Eden in Genesis. “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.” Genesis 11.16. It also has been suggested that with the movement to agriculture, people also discovered the link between sexual intercourse and birth ("He knew his wife”) at this time and this produced further changes in relation to ancestry, the male role, monogamy, children and property. It was a momentous change for humans, just as the expulsion from the Garden of Eden was in the story of the Fall in Genesis and is momentous change for humans.

The Sumerian tale of Emesh and Enten reflects the later story found in the Bible of "Cain and Abel".

Enmunderana appears to be the forerunner of the Biblical Enoch. In Enoch's case, both Enoch and Enmunderana are the seventh name in a list of patriarchs with long lifespans. Enmendurana is associated with Sippar (which was associated with sun worship) while Enoch's lifespan in the Bible is 365 years which is parallel to the number of days in a solar year.



He believed they were from Isaiah as per Jewsh teaching of the time. As would Peter and Paul and otehr disciples. All orginally observant Jews, as far as we know. There was no confirmation.




Of course he would use ancient Scripture to enhance his own reputation and authority. Or at leas this followers would argue that.



That's very disputable no matter what Christians (often with no supporting evidence whatsover) believe.

Thank you for your typically very thorough and researched reply.


At least you are not claiming Jesus was / is fiction.

 

[Vdubs]

Still waiting, Vdubs.

I have said as much as I can about this claim of yours, which actually wasn't a question, but a pronouncement. You then followed up with your various excerpts. As I said, there is no need to reply to those any more than I have. Enough said.

 

[Roylion]

Thank you for your typically very thorough and researched reply.

Well it's nice to see you don't dispute what I said. Just because Jesus may have believed in Old Testament biblical figures and events does not make them actually historically accurate (i.e. true)

At least you are not claiming Jesus was / is fiction.

There may have been a historical figure that the Jesus of the Gospels was based on.

The Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels appears to be largely fictional. Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors. The later the author, the more fantastic the stories. Similar to many of the stories in the King Arthur Cycle. (Lady of the Lake, the healing properties of Excalibur, Arthur merely sleeping ready to rise again when Britain is threatened and so on.

 

[Gethelred]

I have said as much as I can about this claim of yours, which actually wasn't a question, but a pronouncement. You then followed up with your various excerpts. As I said, there is no need to reply to those any more than I have. Enough said.

Nope.

Answer Rusty Brookes' question, and I'll go away.

So the question is - if you don't have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian, how do you know which parts you do have to follow and which parts you don't?

 

[Firenze]

Believe me, I've tried to inform any number of christians in this thread that they aren't christians if they don't follow the bible literally. They don't like it very much.

In some ways odd because you can place emphasis where ever it suits.

 

[Gethelred]

In some ways odd because you can place emphasis where ever it suits.

It's one of the oddities of the christian faith that you seem to be allowed - even encouraged - to pick and choose which aspects of the message you want to follow, and there's apparently no repercussions when you get to the other end.

Unless you wrong the chosen of god or his people. Then, they can do a lot of exceedingly vile stuff to you and yours and it doesn't count as a sin.